The Philadelphia Inquirer's Diane Mastrull (who's previously portrayed opposition to Kelo-style condemnations as "anti-development"), has written a front page story in today's Inquirer which I think drips with sympathy for condemnation-happy governments. Beginning with a headline calling the anti-Kelo movement a "Backlash," the story wastes no time casting aspersions on the thought processes -- if not mental health -- of the anti-Kelo movement:

The words eminent domain have been throwing a fright into property owners for more than half a century, but never more so than in the last six months.

Setting off the nationwide panic attack was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that expanded the concept well beyond its usual bounds.

As a libertarian, I'm vehemently opposed to Kelo-style condemnations, and I support the legislation to redress the problem. So have a lot of bloggers and concerned citizens. But I don't think I've had a "panic attack" over it. No doubt some people have, but that's because the threat of losing one's home is the sort of thing that makes people panic. But there are a lot of people opposed to Kelo who are not in a panic state, and I don't think such hyperbole is fair to them. Certainly not in what I think is supposed to be a news story.

I suspect this is another one of those news stories that wants to be an editorial....

But let's continue:

The justices ruled that a Connecticut city could force the sale of homes and businesses in a neighborhood not deemed blighted, to make way for private economic development.

Predictions of wanton land grabs by local governments rumbled across the country.

The eminent-domain juggernaut, though, has not materialized. What has occurred is a stampede of lawmakers in Congress and more than 30 states to prohibit the kind of property seizures the high court allowed in Connecticut. Within a week of the ruling, a bill reining in the use of eminent domain passed in Delaware. Five are pending in New Jersey and four in Pennsylvania, where one could come up for a Senate vote as early as tomorrow.

A Senate vote?

As early as tomorrow?

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that the timing of this "story" had something to do with a lobbying effort against the "stampede."

Eminent domain "is a very, very important revitalization tool," said Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. Without it, he said, more than 7,300 affordable housing units built in the city since 1992 would not exist.

But for now I'll just have to sit here and content my morbid side with the pro-Kelo (read "revitalization") lobby:

On Wednesday, Wetzel spent four hours in Harrisburg lobbying for compromise language in the bill about to come before the Senate. Under the proposal written by Sen. Jeffrey Piccola (R., Dauphin), property could not be seized unless it met a considerably narrowed definition of "blight." With few exceptions, eminent domain also could not be invoked to clear the way for private commercial enterprises - hotels, office complexes, shopping malls - even if they generated jobs and tax revenue.

The Kelo ruling "made people sit up and take notice and start to realize that in the face of activist courts and local government, private property rights might very well be threatened," said Piccola, whose district includes Harrisburg.

He and like-minded lawmakers have heard pleas for caution from a variety of land-use and redevelopment-advocacy groups such as 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, which is urging more study of eminent domain in the state before any bill is put to a vote.

Late last week, Gov. Rendell's office weighed in with a five-page letter of suggested adjustments to Piccola's proposal, to "strike the right balance between the rights of homeowners ... and the critical needs of Pennsylvania's communities to revitalize."

Except as set forth in subsection (b), the exercise by any condemnor of the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to use it for private commercial enterprise is prohibited.

But wasn't that the whole idea behind Kelo?

Once again, I disagree with Kelo style takings of private property, whether they're called "revitalization" or not.

Those who disagree with me, please go ahead and call my position a "panic attack" if you wish. Feel free to accuse me of fomenting a "stampede." By all means, go ahead and lobby for the pro-Kelo side, if you feel strongly enough.

But if you're going to do all that and call it "reporting," I must protest.

(It's a hell of a way to revitalize news.)